This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2019-03-28
Channels
- # aleph (48)
- # announcements (3)
- # bangalore-clj (1)
- # beginners (131)
- # cider (30)
- # cljdoc (6)
- # cljs-dev (53)
- # cljsrn (24)
- # clojure (312)
- # clojure-austin (2)
- # clojure-europe (4)
- # clojure-finland (6)
- # clojure-nl (24)
- # clojure-spec (24)
- # clojure-uk (66)
- # clojurescript (185)
- # core-async (46)
- # cursive (10)
- # data-science (9)
- # datomic (15)
- # devcards (2)
- # emacs (50)
- # fulcro (28)
- # jobs (1)
- # jobs-discuss (2)
- # kaocha (11)
- # lein-figwheel (12)
- # nyc (1)
- # off-topic (105)
- # other-languages (80)
- # pedestal (6)
- # re-frame (50)
- # reagent (5)
- # reitit (1)
- # remote-jobs (2)
- # ring (10)
- # rum (1)
- # shadow-cljs (10)
- # spacemacs (19)
let's say I have a json map with 10 fields; each json map is modeled as an entity in a datomic schema and the json fields map neatly to entity attributes. does that mean that asserting every json map requires at least 9 datoms? (one being the identity index)
If you need to update all 10 fields, yes. But usually you just update a subset of the fields.
hi, I’m running into an issue where cloud/ion deployments are failing, and I’ve tracked the issue to the failure of one the lambdas in the deployment step function. I’m getting the following error back
{
"error": "States.DataLimitExceeded",
"cause": "The state/task 'arn:aws:lambda:us-east-1:xxxx:function:dat-NZ-Compute-CreateLambdaFromArray-1915A1Q1QXEG8' returned a result with a size exceeding the maximum number of characters service limit."
}
any ideas what might be causing this?@eoliphant I know this is weird, but check if shortening the description of your ion fixes it. I may have run into something similar in the past and that fixed it.
(Not sure how long the description is, if its super short then maybe thats not the obvious fix)
Yeah, i’ve seen that before as well, didn’t think any of the new ones were longer than ones that were working but will double check
Many thanks for the great Datomic Cloud tutorial. 🙂✌️ https://docs.datomic.com/cloud/setting-up.html
@jeff.terrell So I guess that error message is there already - https://docs.datomic.com/cloud/troubleshooting.html#dependency-conflict
Ah, great! Thanks for letting me know.
Anyone with any tips and tricks on how I can get an overview of all schemas in a datomic cloud database? I used to use Datomic console for this before when I was using a peer.
Sorted it with some queries. I guess I could build some private tool to get an overview of it 🙂
I haven’t tried it yet, but you could look into REBL. https://youtu.be/c52QhiXsmyI
I'd believe I found a mistake in the Datomic tutorial https://docs.datomic.com/on-prem/tutorial.html but I surely just missed something. They 1. Transact inorrect inventory counts, 2. Retract one, 3. Update the other, 4. Look at the DB as-of #1 so I'd expect to see what was added, ie
[[:db/add [:inv/sku "SKU-21"] :inv/count 7]
[:db/add [:inv/sku "SKU-22"] :inv/count 7]
[:db/add [:inv/sku "SKU-42"] :inv/count 100]]
but instead the query shows (d/q '[:find ?sku ?count
:where [?inv :inv/sku ?sku]
[?inv :inv/count ?count]]
db-before)
=> [["SKU-42" 100] ["SKU-42" 1000] ["SKU-21" 7] ["SKU-22" 7]]
Why is sku 42 there twice when the cardinality of inv/count is one and when it was only updated from 100 to 1000 in the last tx #3? Can anyone be so kind and explain?